December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > > BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. The origin of property is labor. Claiming >that _my_ property is the result of ME stealing, and hence what I OWN belongs >to the community IS theft. I work, and as the result of that work something is >created. That something is MINE to do with as I will. If I choose to sell that >work for money, that money is mine. If I trade that money for shoes, those >shoes are mine. THere is no theft involved. Tell this to the Native Americans. --Steve

2 1

Re: PGPMail Log File
by Mutatis Mutantdis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 09:27:45 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:22 AM 1/31/97 +0000, "Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl'" >< WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.comwrote: >> Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? >> In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, >> since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. >> [..] >> I understand in certain group/corporate environs one would want >> logging; in others, one doesn't need it or should have the option (in >> an easily found place) to wipe it every once in a while. >This is a damn good question. I do NOT have the "write to a log file" >option slected in the misc. tab and it STILL writes a log file. How DO >we disable this? Well, I just found that option to uncheck it (thanks to your message) so I'll try it w/the log file unchecked and see what happens. (Duh!) Rob

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[big snip] >If every time someone made a mistake they got >punished, without the opportunity to understand the error and without the >opportunity to make corrections, they would be a psychological wreck. Yes, you have certainly pointed out a property of AP, insofar as teaching is concerned. The reality of the physical world is that some mistakes, for example steping off a cliff, are immediately punished by a fall and possibly death. The 'student' may or may not learn for the experience but other students who are witness most certainly will. >If every time someone made mistake they got assassinated, not only would no >one wish to do anything for fear of losing their lives, creating a >"society" of timid sheep, there probably wouldn't be many people remaining >to savor the triumph of being superior. I sincerely doubt that many would use AP to right small slights, anymore than many now kill others for the same reasons. The world has always been inhabited by bullies and tyrants who cared little of what harm they caused others. An AP system would quickly eliminate bullies and tyrants. > >AP is just another form of war. You can bet that if assassinations >increased a hundred fold as a result of your method, not only "governments" >but some very bright people would get together to figure out a defense >against it, for they also would be "at risk". I think the reaction of the society as a whole to AP would depend on what its perceived overall results were. If assassinations of scum and tyrants increased a hundred fold it would hardly be noticed on any political radar screen, except the bullies and tyrants. --Steve

1 0

Re: Complying with the EAR [was: More Circumventing the ITAR]
by Michael Paul Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Sean Roach wrote: > At 11:14 AM 1/29/97 -0700, Michael Paul Johnson wrote: > >On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Mark Rosen wrote: > > > >> I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically > >> about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for > > > >You should check the exact text yourself, but the way I read the EAR, you > >are not "exporting" strong cryptographic software without a license (exept > >to Canada, which needs no license) if you do things "such as" > >(1) have the guests to your site acknowledge that the EAR restricts > >export, (2) have the guests affirm that they can legally get the software > >(proper citizenship or residency & location), and (3) "check the address > >of the destination computer to see if it is in the USA" or Canada. The > >last one, I interpret rather loosely to mean that if the guest's email > >address domain isn't one commonly used in the USA or Canada, then I deny > >access. We all know that not all .com addresses are North American, but > >chances are really good that if the address ends in .ru, then the > >destination machine is probably not in North America. This is not a > >perfect way to prevent export, of course, but it is what the regulations > >say, as I read them. For a pointer to the regulations and to my access > >request form and crypto site, see http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm > ... > An easy crack to that would be to request access from a hotmail, or > similair, account. This account would show up as being on US soil while the > account holder would not necessarily be so. In this way, someone with an > account ending in your .ru would get through because h[is/er] e-mail request > originated from inside the U.S. If that is the only chink in the armor you see, then you aren't looking very hard. The point of this system is not to prevent exports, but to (1) comply with the letter of the law by discouraging export in the specified manner, (2) to comply with the spirit of the law by reducing the number of exports of cryptographic software from the USA, while (3) making publication of strong cryptographic software in North America easy and safe from legal persecution. Without point (3), the national security of the USA would be harmed, IMHO, by the fact that proportionally more dishonest people (the ones the NSA and FBI are quict to draw attention to) than honest ones (the majority of the people who want to use strong cryptography to protect their privacy and business interests from the dishonest folks) would use strong cryptography. The only reason I can think of that the U. S. Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States of America and his staff have determined that export of strong cryptographic software can harm "national security" even when such software already is available outside of the USA, is that they are really more concerned about the numbers of people that use such software regularly, and therefore, they want to limit the total bandwidth of distribution capacity and ease of retrieval of such software. Export controls can effectively do both, even if they cannot realistically prevent export. Think about it. It was a pain to set up the EAR-compliant site that I set up compared to a simple site for global distribution, and few people would go through the hassle. Many major information services and ftp sites simply disallow strong cryptographic software rather than go through the hassle. Because of this, it is probably true that fewer people find, download, and use strong cryptographic software. Until more people set up more strong cryptographic software distribution sites and write more good, secure, robust, easy-to-use cryptographic software such that it is about as easy to find and use it as not to, the Feds win. Their point is proven. Fewer people use strong cryptography than would otherwise, and some small (but, to them, significant) percentage of those people who were discouraged from using strong cryptographic software might have used that software in a criminal activity. Too bad about the good guys who could have prevented computer crime or worse with the same technology, huh? http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm Michael Paul Johnson Opinions herein are not necessarily Exabyte's. Work: mpj(a)exabyte.com http://www.exabyte.com Personal: mpj(a)csn.net http://www.csn.net/~mpj BBS 303-772-1062

1 0

Georgia court hears testimony in anonymity case, from TNNN
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Georgia court hears testimony, future of free speech, from TNNN The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ Brick By Brick by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) January 31, 1997 ATLANTA, Ga.-- A federal judge heard testimony yesterday in a landmark case challenging a Georgia law that forbids anonymity online. The ACLU filed the lawsuit -- the first-ever challenge to a state Net-censorship statute -- last September on behalf of 14 plaintiffs, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. The law also criminalizes the "unauthorized" use of company names online. It is so broadly written, the ACLU claims, that America Online screen names could be considered illegal. Yesterday's hearing was designed to educate U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob about the Net, in much the same way that lawyers educated a three-judge panel that struck down the Communications Decency Act in Philadelphia in June 1996. It began with a Georgia Tech professor who painstakingly demonstrated how the Internet works. "This pointing device in the middle of the screen is the cursor," he said. The lawsuit is one of many that will shape the future of free expression in cyberspace -- and new media. The Georgia challenge seems straightforward, but in truth is a key part of the ACLU's strategy to cement a foundation of legal precedents that will build on one another, brick by statutory brick, and solidify into a framework for free speech on the Internet. The most fierce battlefield, however, will be in state capitols and courtrooms like these. More than 20 states already have launched various offensives against the Net, but the ACLU is choosing its battles carefully. Depending on how Judge Shoob rules, near-perfect anonymous speech may, for the first time in history, be completely legal -- at least in one federal district. In a move that could derail congressional attempts to rehabilitate the CDA if the high court strikes it down, the ACLU assailed a New York State law banning sexual images that are "harmful to minors." The organization also is planning to sue in Virginia, Florida and California, highlighting a different legal point in each case. True, the decisions won't be binding on other courts -- unlike, say, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling -- but in such a new area of the law, judges will grasp at even district court precedents. "You can't underestimate the importance," said ACLU attorney Chris Hansen. "The law works through precedent. Each case builds on the one before it." Key to the strategy is the argument that states can't regulate speech on the Internet at all. It's a nuclear bomb of a legal theory, which relies on the Constitution's commerce clause and on Supreme Court cases that bar states from controlling "commerce that takes place wholly outside of the state's borders." The coalition's brief offers Usenet newsgroups as an example: "The posting of this message in California, therefore, may subject the California author to prosecution in Georgia under the Act." The state countered that local standards should always apply. Daniel Formby, Georgia's deputy attorney general, said yesterday: "You do not have to enter a state to violate its laws." Free-speech victories in states such as Georgia would permit netizens to bypass the strict controls on television and radio that ban the transmission of "indecent" words or images. When the Internet starts carrying movies and soaps, the stronger free-speech standards of cyberspace will extend to those broadcasts. "We gain stronger First Amendment rights for other media when they converge, as the Internet absorbs other technologies," said ACLU attorney Ann Beeson. Sitting quietly in the rear of the Atlanta courtroom throughout the hearing was State Rep. Don Parsons, who with the Democratic leadership introduced the Georgia law last spring. Parsons insists the ACLU's challenge is wrongheaded. Does the law ban anonymous speech? "Certainly not! Absolutely not!" he claimed. So what was the purpose behind the the law? To prevent fraud, said Parsons. But that's not what I found. The genesis of the bizarre Georgia law lies not in policies as much as in rank statehouse politics. I went looking for Georgia's Speaker of the House and found him in his office. He leaned back in his chair and chewed on a cigar. A 72-year old Democrat, Thomas Murphy has reigned over the state House of Representatives for 24 years from an office studded with stuffed rabbits and bobcats and conveniently adjacent to the House floor. Yesterday, he declined to discuss the measure. "I can't tell you anything about it because I don't know anything about it or computers or the Internet or anything like that," he said. But he knows politics, and his enemies, especially Rep. Mitchell Kaye, a fellow who fancies himself the Newt Gingrich of the Georgia legislature. Like Gingrich, Kaye is a technocratic Republican hailing from bluenose Cobb County, and like pre-1994 Gingrich, he sees himself as waging guerrilla warfare against a corrupt and entrenched Democratic majority. Dem leaders are equally uncomplimentary. "None of us likes Mr. Kaye... No manners towards anyone. He tries to cause all the confusion he can," Speaker Murphy grumbled. Indeed, the whole statutory mess began shortly after Kaye created his own web site, www.gahouse.com, which he uses to post legislation, contact information and some partisan pages for his conservative caucus. It proved popular, drawing thousands of visitors a week -- and the wrath of lawmakers such as Speaker Murphy, longtime veterans of traditional machine politics. It was Kaye's use of the state seal on his site -- even with appropriate disclaimers -- that handed Democrats a way to muzzle him through the law the ACLU has challenged. The irony is, of course, that the Georgia Democrats never intended to ban all anonymous and pseudonymous discussions. They never believed they'd be attacked in court by a team of New York City lawyers. But by punishing anyone who "uses any individual name... to falsely identify the person" -- even without intent to deceive -- their law censors not just Mitchell Kaye, but netizens as well. "The last thing they want is sunshine on this case," said the upstart Republican, who joined the suit as one of the plaintiffs. "They pass a lot of unconstitutional legislation around here." ###

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the > > BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. The origin of property is labor. Claiming >that _my_ property is the result of ME stealing, and hence what I OWN belongs >to the community IS theft. I work, and as the result of that work something is >created. That something is MINE to do with as I will. If I choose to sell that >work for money, that money is mine. If I trade that money for shoes, those >shoes are mine. THere is no theft involved. Tell this to the Native Americans. --Steve

1 0

Key Security Question
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my passphrase? Zach Babayco zachb(a)netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available.

3 2

Constitutional Right to Annoy?
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's New York Times web page's Cybertimes section has an article on a new lawsuit that claims a constitutional right to annoy. Among other things, annoy.com will provide a way to "send anonymous e-mail messages to public figures." They're suing the CDA. http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/013197annoy.html (Assuming I retyped it correctly.) Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

RC5-12/32/5 contest solved. Who gets a credit?
by Yuri Sorkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:37:57 -0800 At 09:55 PM 1/28/97 +0100, Germano Caronni <caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >challenge: RC5-32/12/5 >time: from start of contest until Tue Jan 28 21:54:58 1997 >method: massive distributed coordinated keysearch, details later which was a bit slower than Ian Goldberg's crack, but pretty close. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huh!? Goldbeg's announce states that he spent about 3.5 hours, i.e. a solution came not earlier than 12.30 PST, while Caronni got it at 11.55 am PST. Yuri Sorkin

1 0

Re: CAST
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For a paper on CAST see: http://www.nortel.com/entprods/entrust/cast.html "Constructing Symmetric Ciphers Using the CAST Design Procedure" By Carlisle M. Adams

1 0

CAST
by Ng Pheng Siong 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Attended a presentation by Milkyway, vendor of the BlackHole firewall, which also does VPN. Supposedly the symmetric cipher used in the VPN is called CAST. Anyone has any info on it? TIA. Cheers. -- Ng Pheng Siong <ngps(a)pacific.net.sg> * Pacific Internet Pte Ltd * Singapore PGP: send mail with subject "send pgp key".

1 0

Constitutional Right to Annoy?
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's New York Times web page's Cybertimes section has an article on a new lawsuit that claims a constitutional right to annoy. Among other things, annoy.com will provide a way to "send anonymous e-mail messages to public figures." They're suing the CDA. http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/013197annoy.html (Assuming I retyped it correctly.) Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

"Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something By ARNOLD MARKOWITZ Herald Staff Writer U.S. mail carriers carry more than just the U.S. mail. They carry something else so secret that nobody outside the Postal Service knows about it -- except four crooks who steal them from letter carriers on the streets of Miami. There's a $25,000 reward for tips producing capture and conviction. ... Comments? Please direct any replies for the list to me also, as I am still on Ray's FCPUNX, which I suppose makes this list double-filtered for me now, if a little delayed. :-) Typically, I now care what the mystery device is, since the occasionally-disgruntled ones don't want me to know. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBMvIhGzUhsGSn1j2pAQEp5wfPQ1YsiZviksusdbdVQHBz9yKMOSt5z3Ue Utlmxzx8RExqjaTc/cSLORf55pBWbJiDFB+a+ev09I2iZujq7nlNNCZNI0NaHw2L RObAjBQ4YT7sekWYMw81y08zH9x49OmAhh7CCh2qzh5ZyQ0qc3YdFzmc8F00+jdW J9ZsXSvJaBS+Jvh/eIPH+IlD873hyk6T4Nrayt0xt2z6Ajvst0XK5vOLkeJobZg3 +x8IyS26/bcrWGkKD/4rK81/QDmLIyHG7oWzaJAR1q6UKCad0C1w6/i2dwWtWV1v RyXfyYTgXi8XPbieBL7RZmP0j3A0xqlCr4PASMuZskBa+g== =Kspp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray <jmr(a)shopmiami.com> DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy One of the "legitimate concerns of law enforcement" seems to be that I was born innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. -- me http://shopmiami.com/prs/jimray/ PGP id.A7D63DA9 98 1F 39 BA 93 86 B4 F5 57 52 64 0E DA BA 2C 71

1 0

Re: PGPMail 4.5 Released!
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:29 AM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >And what happened to the $29 discount price they proposed for 2.6.3 users and viuacrypt users!!!!!!!!!!!! > I just email PGP sales with that question. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvJBCIVO4r4sgSPhAQEZ4wP/RWERsyjzsVURKR5rBZx3DKoj6dDDRvIP vNGbE3UnI/hqiRaZSf6P/36MnM2dQ8yIbbmlvsWV3N4m9moBUnvY6hy3elbwFTkE P+cICHcm3S0uW68aZ/vKK4sasg+WJgd+YLBwdQWkZc8GBn8Ut6mJE7sVXEiJWNMC WgFjwMALh7A= =j4+j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > "Other governments were upset with the 56-bit export allowance. > > They said it was going to undermine their national security." > > On this point, the other governments are correct. > It really _is_ tougher to maintain a nation-state when your > former subjects can have private conversations with each other > and with other governments' former subjects...... > And even 56 bits is a start. Full strength crypto is already available worldwide. It makes not one iota of difference. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 President FAX: 510-986-8777 C2Net http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net

1 0

Key Security Question
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my passphrase? Zach Babayco zachb(a)netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available.

1 0

Re: CAST
by C. Kuethe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Ng Pheng Siong wrote: > Hi, > > Attended a presentation by Milkyway, vendor of the BlackHole firewall, which also does VPN. > Supposedly the symmetric cipher used in the VPN is called CAST. Anyone has any info on it? > TIA. Cheers. It's a canadian cipher. It's inventors have the initials C.A. and S.T. pure coincidence they say. it's got a little write-up in Appl. Crypto 2, and I'll post anything I can about it as soon as I get home. I don't have my copy of ac2 on me... I do remember that it's patented, and you have to talk to these folks for licences I believe.... more to come later. PLUR chris -- Chris Kuethe <ckuethe(a)gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> LPGV Electronics and Controls <c100305(a)wolfcreek.cs.ualberta.ca> http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckuethe/ RSA in 2 lines of PERL lives at http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> "When I talk to other governments," [David L. Aaron] said, > "they still don't feel that the cat is out of the bag." Aaron's denying that the cat is out of the bag? He was fashionably dressed in a Lion Tamer's outfit, waving a whip, and trying to herd hundreds of small furry mammals to jump through a hoop and back into a clawed-up army duffel-bag! "Cats? Haven't seen any cats around here! Pay no attention to these,umm, Siberian Hamsters that I'm evaluating for export approval." > "Other governments were upset with the 56-bit export allowance. > They said it was going to undermine their national security." On this point, the other governments are correct. It really _is_ tougher to maintain a nation-state when your former subjects can have private conversations with each other and with other governments' former subjects...... And even 56 bits is a start. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PJ wrote me in email: >A slight correction. The ``bernstein etc.'' cases are not about the >right to have strong crypto. There is no United States law forbidding >one from having or using crypto, hard, soft, or squishy. Those cases >challenge regulations that keep one from publishing information about >crypto including cryptographic software. Even if it were made illegal >to use hard crypto, it would still be a violation of the First >Amendment for the government to require a license before one is >allowed to publish information about crypto or anything else. I consider it a violation of free speech if the government made "hard crypto" illegal. yes, these cases are generally challenging the publishing aspects of crypto in the US, but this is not what I consider the most important constitutional ingredient in favor of crypto. crypto is essentially a kind of speech, or communication. hence restricting it would be like outlawing a certain foreign language that the government doesn't understand. in my opinion, this is the most important, root case to be made for the use of crypto in this country. publishing crypto algorithms is only a side issue compared to this, imho. so the bottom line is this: crypto regulations can be challenged under the idea that they are restricting freedom of the press, i.e. for academics to discuss algorithms, or it can be challenged under freedom of speech issues, i.e. everyone has the right to use codes for whatever purpose. currently because the regulations prohibit the "export" of crypto code, the first route is the basic challenge that makes the most sense. but I'd like to see the ITAR challenged on the second grounds as well, i.e. as a free speech issue. there's less reason when the gov't is not trying to regulate domestic crypto, but it might be a relevant angle in the export debate. BTW, I understand that there are cases being made by Karn, Junger, and Bernstein, is that correct? with Junger being the most recent? does anyone have web pages dedicated to each one of these? thanks;

1 0

Quick question
by Chad Robinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How does the current Linux IPSEC release work? Is it a kernel patch or module? A daemon? I'd love to try this out on a local LAN here to see it in action, but don't have too much time these days. Best regards, Chad --------------------------[ Chad Robinson (Task) ]---------------------------- Senior Systems Analyst chadr(a)brttech.com BRT Technical Services Corporation http://www.brttech.com/~chadr -----------------[ Why is `abbreviation' such a long word? ]------------------

1 0

RC5-12/32/5 contest solved. Who gets a credit?
by Yuri Sorkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:37:57 -0800 At 09:55 PM 1/28/97 +0100, Germano Caronni <caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >challenge: RC5-32/12/5 >time: from start of contest until Tue Jan 28 21:54:58 1997 >method: massive distributed coordinated keysearch, details later which was a bit slower than Ian Goldberg's crack, but pretty close. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huh!? Goldbeg's announce states that he spent about 3.5 hours, i.e. a solution came not earlier than 12.30 PST, while Caronni got it at 11.55 am PST. Yuri Sorkin

1 0

Re: PGPMail 4.5 Released!
by Alan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Duncan Frissell wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 06:29 AM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: > >And what happened to the $29 discount price they proposed for 2.6.3 users and viuacrypt users!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > I just email PGP sales with that question. I just got off the phone with PGP sales. Currently PGPMail is only available off if the web site for download. The version on disk will be available sometime mid February. So it looks like if you want it now it is going to cost you $149. If you wait until mid February, you can get it at the lower price (plus $10 shipping and handling). BTW, it does use SSL on the order form, though I have my doubts about the security of sending form data from an insecure page to a secure form cgi.

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PJ wrote me in email: >A slight correction. The ``bernstein etc.'' cases are not about the >right to have strong crypto. There is no United States law forbidding >one from having or using crypto, hard, soft, or squishy. Those cases >challenge regulations that keep one from publishing information about >crypto including cryptographic software. Even if it were made illegal >to use hard crypto, it would still be a violation of the First >Amendment for the government to require a license before one is >allowed to publish information about crypto or anything else. I consider it a violation of free speech if the government made "hard crypto" illegal. yes, these cases are generally challenging the publishing aspects of crypto in the US, but this is not what I consider the most important constitutional ingredient in favor of crypto. crypto is essentially a kind of speech, or communication. hence restricting it would be like outlawing a certain foreign language that the government doesn't understand. in my opinion, this is the most important, root case to be made for the use of crypto in this country. publishing crypto algorithms is only a side issue compared to this, imho. so the bottom line is this: crypto regulations can be challenged under the idea that they are restricting freedom of the press, i.e. for academics to discuss algorithms, or it can be challenged under freedom of speech issues, i.e. everyone has the right to use codes for whatever purpose. currently because the regulations prohibit the "export" of crypto code, the first route is the basic challenge that makes the most sense. but I'd like to see the ITAR challenged on the second grounds as well, i.e. as a free speech issue. there's less reason when the gov't is not trying to regulate domestic crypto, but it might be a relevant angle in the export debate. BTW, I understand that there are cases being made by Karn, Junger, and Bernstein, is that correct? with Junger being the most recent? does anyone have web pages dedicated to each one of these? thanks;

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > > It is, they say, a rich man's game > > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. > > -- if I'm libeled by the NYT, I'm > > probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump can. Moreover, > > if I don't have the resources to sue but the statement is libelous, it > > creates a *presumption* in the minds of the readers that the article is > > certainly true. (If it were not, I would have sued, right?) > > Another good example of why our system is broke. If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvJkASzIPc7jvyFpAQESzAf+Km41fJ4vhavBizPODBuzM8OpolOHFUIy N45inFeUGtsaPH5BBz0T4blAlfgKoYU7N72E/nxbLx+QHZ42oQxcsvtoxiS/zjW8 ilygkVyVxsokueexwLo1QbBn87XIYHbyJBX2Tom31I5iw67caMAfKibnQoVEb1/r 8wlLe00CVB/rkob3QMO1VpT+FLl68+qjo+xfvCNe/GyyvJe0soppnh+croNSWA7R uksNa18XENdntBmy5UDqyCrTfLI40rZkd4wYoTkOy7K2eq1cz2uSO9J2BJOpHnh6 zh4JtXI5UVYOvj3BMbYe0v7Cs/V+1e/eLtqyMNvFGNM2jdl2f39G6w== =lYDr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Re: Denial of service attack
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimwit Virus K[arcinogen]OfTheMonth styles his facial hair to look more like pubic hair. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dimwit Virus K[arcinogen]OfTheMonth

1 0

How to get MORE ORDERS for ANYTHING YOU sell!
by ubs＠mci2000.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello,^Morons, Hello! As an Entrepreneur you may be interested in a LEADING marketing plan! This plan has worked for many successful entrepreneurs. For more information, please inquire at: REPLY TO: UBS(a)QualityService.com SUBJECT LINE: "Marketing Plan" This file could mean the online marketing difference between scintillating success and frustrating failure!

1 0

[URGENT] PGP Signatures
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When Dopefiend L[owdown] Vulis K[unt] Of The Moment's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. ^ ^ (o o) Dopefiend L[owdown] Vulis K[unt] Of The Moment ( ) \___/ !_!

1 0

Re: Fwd:[Yet another -onics..]
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Denney wrote: > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >From sysgu-1(a)PaloAlto01.pop.internex.net Thu Jan 30 14:31 PST 1997 > Subject: Fwd:[Yet another -onics..] > To: "Sonni Zambino" <sonni(a)dentistat.com>, "Mike Denney" <gomez(a)BASISinc.com>, > "Jim Staudenheimer" <JnCStaud(a)aol.com> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > ***************************** > "GEEKONICS" IS JUST A BEGINNING > by John Woestendiek > Philadelphia Inquirer > Wed., January 8, 1997 > ***************************** > > NEWS BULLETIN: Saying it will improve the education of children who > have grown up immersed in computer lingo, the school board in San > Jose, Calif., has officially designated computer English, or > "Geekonics", as a second language. > > The historic vote on Geekonics - a combination of the word "geek" and > the word "phonics" - came just weeks after the Oakland school board > recognized black English, or Ebonics, as a distinct language. > > "This entirely reconfigures our parameters," Milton "Floppy" > Macintosh, chairman of Geekonics Unlimited, said after the school > board became the first in the nation to recognize Geekonics. > "No longer are we preformatted for failure," Macintosh said during a > celebration that saw many Geekonics backers come dangerously close to > smiling. "Today, we are rebooting, implementing a program to process > the data we need to interface with all units of humanity." > > Controversial and widely misunderstood, the Geekonics movement was > spawned in California's Silicon Valley, where many children have grown > up in households headed by computer technicians, programmers, engineers > and scientists who have lost ability to speak plain English and have > inadvertently passed on their high-tech vernacular to their children. > > HELPING THE TRANSITION > > While schools will not teach the language, increased teacher awareness > of Geekonics, proponents say, will help children make the transition > to standard English. Those students, in turn, could possibly help > their parents learn to speak in a manner that would lead listeners to > believe that they have actual blood coursing through their veins. > > "Bit by bit, byte by byte, with the proper system development, with > nonpreemptive multitasking, I see no reason why we can't download the > data we need to modulate our oral output," Macintosh said. The > designation of Ebonics and Geekonics as languages reflects a growing > awareness of our nation's lingual diversity, experts say. Other groups > pushing for their own languages and/or vernaculars to be declared > official viewed the Geekonics vote as a step in the right direction. > > "This is just, like, OK, you know, the most totally kewl thing, like, > ever," said Jennifer Notat-Albright, chairwoman of the Committee for > the Advancement of Valleyonics, headquartered in Southern California. > "I mean, like, you know?" she added. > > THEY'RE HAPPY IN DIXIE > > Yeee-hah," said Buford "Kudzu" Davis, president of the Dixionics > Coalition. "Y'all gotta know I'm as happy as a tick on a sleeping > bloodhound about this." Spokesmen for several subchapters of Dixionics > - including Alabonics, Tennesonics and Louisionics - also said they > approved of the decision. Bill Flack, public information officer for > the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Bureaucratonics said that his > organization would not comment on the San Jose vote until it convened > a summit meeting, studied the impact, assessed the feasibility, > finalized a report and drafted a comprehensive action plan, > which, once it clears the appropriate subcommittees and is voted on, > will be made public to those who submit the proper information-request > forms. > > Proponents of Ebonics heartily endorsed the designation of Geekonics > as an official language. > > "I ain't got no problem wif it," said Earl E. Byrd, president of the > Ebonics Institute. "You ever try talkin' wif wunna dem computer dudes? > Don't matter if it be a white computer dude or a black computer dude; > it's like you be talkin' to a robot - RAM, DOS, undelete, MegaHertZ. > Ain't nobody understands. But dey keep talkin' anyway. 'Sup wif dat?" > Those involved in the lingual diversity movement believe that only by > enacting many different English languages, in addition to all the > foreign ones practiced here, can we all end up happily speaking the > same boring one, becoming a nation that is both unified in its > diversity, and diversified in its unity. Others say that makes no > sense at all. In any language. > > ----- End Included Message -----

1 0

UNSCRIBE
by XaViUs＠pe.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSCRIBE

2 1

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:28:56 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> > > Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a > good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal > system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. Really? And what if the out come is nothing more than a public statement in the local newspaper that the original statement was not true and paying the court costs? I doubt you will find a single attorney who will take the case because there is no profit for them. > If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely > disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead > of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. Really? And just exactly do you base this assumption on? Historicaly it would seem that people want to believe the dirty grit about people. If they didn't they wouldn't make the National Inquirer as successful as it is. No, in general people don't give a crap about the real truth or falsity of the statement unless it directly impacts them in some manner. What they are interested in is entertainment, something the law should not provide. The real issue is whether a Democracy can exist in an environment where there is no requirement of honesty and truth from its citizens. I would contend that it can't since the democratic process itself is representative of those people and their beliefs. If you really and truly belive a democratic society can exist with no recognition of and protection for reputation we will just have to respectfuly disagree. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

News: Panic! Internet is full of terrorists!
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm really sick and tired of this hypocritical bullshit from our executive branch. On one hand, we have FBI + CIA + NSA crying terrorists and child pornographers can get away with their crimes if networks are secured with cryptography. On the other hand, we also have presidential panels crying that our networks are vulnerable to terrorists if we don't do some serious security overhauls. What the *#@!! do they want? If you outlaw security software, then stop whining that the networks aren't secure! If you want secure networks, stop whining about the encryption "problem". Either the network is secure or it isn't. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Ern -------- QUOTED ARTICLE FROM: San Jose Mercury (Jan 31, 1997) PRESIDENTIAL PANEL WARNS OF CYBERATTACK THREAT Critics charge danger overstated, could lead to unwarranted intrusion on Net Published: Jan. 31, 1997 BY RORY J. O'CONNOR Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The United States faces a serious risk of cyberattacks against vital computer-controlled networks, attacks that could threaten the nation's security or economy, according to a presidential commission evaluating the threat. [SNIP] -------- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:23:18 -0600 (CST) > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com > > I can give you an example. > > ``Jim Choate invented an improved bubble sort method, called BSAM.'' > > This is undoubtedly false since you likely did not invent any sorting > method. But you would not be able to get any damages (is that correct?) Under the present system? Yes, it would not be worth a lawyers time to process the appropriate paperwork unless I were a computer scientist and the statement was published in a reputable magazine by something like the ACM or IEEE. Under the system I propose you would be forced to publish a public recantation in the local press as well as paying the legal fees for the trial at least. Provided of course it was worth the cost of the bond to me. After all it is my reputation. The only person who should make decisions about how important my reputation is to me is me, most definitely not you or any other third party. I suspect you would not allow me to decide your reputation either. > When you say "should", what do you mean? That the current law will > hold you to a minimum standard of evidence? > Or you mean that it would be nice if it were so? Neither, the currrent requirements of the law are irrelevant. My premise is that such current laws are broke, why would I want to promote them? Answer, I wouldn't. As to 'nice', what is nice isn't an issue. What is necessary is the recognition that for a democratic society to exist in a world where business is done based on reputations by parties who may never make more contact than a email and EFT making statements about such reputations which are not backed by verifiable evidence should be discouraged strongly. > > A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other > > forms of lies. > > Why? And who decides what is a lie? This is almost too silly to even respond to. A lie is a statement which could be true but isn't. In the context of the current discussion this would mean that a statement made by one party about another party which was told to a third party and was not verifiable with evidence. Why should anyone tolerate a liar? Responsible and reasonable people don't tolerate liars. Who decides? The same group who decides now, the jury. > > In civil cases the plaintiff should place a bond, set at some percentage of > > the maximum permissible award, at the time the case is filed. This would at > > least cover the general costs of the court and limit nuisance cases. > > > > You can either oppose "specieocracy" and inequality of rich and > poor in libel litigation, or ask to place bonds that will make even > harder for the poor to sue, BUT NOT BOTH, if you want to remain logical. This is another clever attempt at a smoke screen. Nice try but 'Brrrrrttt', you loose the bet. I would suggest you don't play poker, your bluffs are truly amateurish. If the plaintiff pays up front or at the end is irrelevant. If the plaintiff loses they pay the cost of the court. If they win then the defendant pays the court costs, reimbursment of the bond, and the penalites awarded by the jury/court. The only reason to require anything up front is to act as a verification that the plaintiff can pay the court costs (which they get back if they win and must pay anyway if they loose) up front. The reason being that it would be possible without this for people to skip out on the court costs if they loose, which would cause another more expensive cost, a criminal trial, that the people in general would have to carry. The end result would be that the taxes we would have to pay would be higher just like your credit card costs are more expensive than they need to be because of fraud by other card holders. I would never attempt to speak for you but I pay too much tax now taking care of deadbeats and similar sorts. Further more, the bond would not have to be extravagant. If it were a simple case of libel with no punitive damages involved it would be resolved by a small claims court and might require no more than $25 - $50 as a bond. The point of the bond is to make the plaintiff think twice, not hinder them if that is what they truly feel is their due. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > > BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. The origin of property is labor. Claiming > >that _my_ property is the result of ME stealing, and hence what I OWN belongs > >to the community IS theft. I work, and as the result of that work something is > >created. That something is MINE to do with as I will. If I choose to sell that > >work for money, that money is mine. If I trade that money for shoes, those > >shoes are mine. THere is no theft involved. > Tell this to the Native Americans. Steve, Slam-dunk, dude! Toto

1 0

Re: Complying with the EAR [was: More Circumventing the ITAR]
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Paul Johnson wrote: > If that is the only chink in the armor you see, then you aren't looking > very hard. The point of this system is Michael, Enjoyed your post. The motivations underlying U.S. crypto policy are indeed multi-faceted, and it is always good to have a variety of well-thought out opinions as to some of the various impetus' behind the machinations of the different governmental departments, etc., which encompass the wide range of those involved in setting and enforcing crypto policy. No matter what the original motivations or pre-conceived plans behind the initial impetus towards the regulation of crypto, once 'policy' enters the governmental maze it takes on a life of its own, subject to whims and vagarities of departments and individuals which reflect a confusing kalidescope of concerns which are both parallel and tangent to the starting vector. I would imagine that, 1,000 years from now, students might well be taught that Phil Zimmerman was responsible for World War III, with the CypherPunks bearing much of the blame, as well. Toto "Fighting for peace, and fucking for virginity."

1 0

pgpfingerd
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For what it's worth, I wrote a very short fingerd that fetches _only_ a user's .pgpplan file, should it exist. Else it just exits. Someone may have already done this, so be it. This was mostly for my own use, but if anyone wants the code, feel free to use it. It's available from my home page ( http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ ). After calling getpwnam() on the username supplied, it calls setuid() with the uid of the user being fingered. It ignores any finger options and attempts to parse them out. It's possible I missed some. After setuid(), it attempts to open a file called .pgpplan in the directory (pw_dir) returned by getpwnam(). If this is not a _regular_ file, it exits, i.e. no symlinks. Then it shoves the file out over stdout (this assumes it was invoked by inetd). That's it. I've only compiled it on Linux and BSDI, but it doesn't do anything very odd, so it should compile fine on other Unix platforms. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvKgyy/fy+vkqMxNAQHqKgQAqxKiAzcOUDx9ThN5D6OHwuyUE1WlCtXr EVjg0d19fhafiTGO3HwAFbk8zxtzs/YMtSJ4a5nbALQTUxVBF/749DboXU+IS37l urB7MjBb0mB7+4IDmmR/iFEJa/U/mlTWZiLZ7JOq2Y7GtuqDmGgN3Z/T+K0loQvl 7Qn1x8aHXlI= =RxZM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Z.B. wrote: > > My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > passphrase? If the repairman has your pubring and secring files, you can now consider them in the same light as a 'busted flush'. Chances are, he has neither the capability nor the interest in popping open your deep, dark secrets. On the other hand, if he returns your computer with a 'shit-eating grin', you may be in for a world-of-hurt. My advice would be for you to check your 'paranoia level' and, if you are a quart low, then read Phil Zimmerman's PGP documentation once again, and make your decision based on the reality of the possibilities involved. Toto

2 1

News: Panic! Internet is full of terrorists!
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm really sick and tired of this hypocritical bullshit from our executive branch. On one hand, we have FBI + CIA + NSA crying terrorists and child pornographers can get away with their crimes if networks are secured with cryptography. On the other hand, we also have presidential panels crying that our networks are vulnerable to terrorists if we don't do some serious security overhauls. What the *#@!! do they want? If you outlaw security software, then stop whining that the networks aren't secure! If you want secure networks, stop whining about the encryption "problem". Either the network is secure or it isn't. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Ern -------- QUOTED ARTICLE FROM: San Jose Mercury (Jan 31, 1997) PRESIDENTIAL PANEL WARNS OF CYBERATTACK THREAT Critics charge danger overstated, could lead to unwarranted intrusion on Net Published: Jan. 31, 1997 BY RORY J. O'CONNOR Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The United States faces a serious risk of cyberattacks against vital computer-controlled networks, attacks that could threaten the nation's security or economy, according to a presidential commission evaluating the threat. [SNIP] -------- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:28:56 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> > > Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a > good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal > system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. Really? And what if the out come is nothing more than a public statement in the local newspaper that the original statement was not true and paying the court costs? I doubt you will find a single attorney who will take the case because there is no profit for them. > If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely > disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead > of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. Really? And just exactly do you base this assumption on? Historicaly it would seem that people want to believe the dirty grit about people. If they didn't they wouldn't make the National Inquirer as successful as it is. No, in general people don't give a crap about the real truth or falsity of the statement unless it directly impacts them in some manner. What they are interested in is entertainment, something the law should not provide. The real issue is whether a Democracy can exist in an environment where there is no requirement of honesty and truth from its citizens. I would contend that it can't since the democratic process itself is representative of those people and their beliefs. If you really and truly belive a democratic society can exist with no recognition of and protection for reputation we will just have to respectfuly disagree. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Fwd:[Yet another -onics..]
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Denney wrote: > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >From sysgu-1(a)PaloAlto01.pop.internex.net Thu Jan 30 14:31 PST 1997 > Subject: Fwd:[Yet another -onics..] > To: "Sonni Zambino" <sonni(a)dentistat.com>, "Mike Denney" <gomez(a)BASISinc.com>, > "Jim Staudenheimer" <JnCStaud(a)aol.com> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > ***************************** > "GEEKONICS" IS JUST A BEGINNING > by John Woestendiek > Philadelphia Inquirer > Wed., January 8, 1997 > ***************************** > > NEWS BULLETIN: Saying it will improve the education of children who > have grown up immersed in computer lingo, the school board in San > Jose, Calif., has officially designated computer English, or > "Geekonics", as a second language. > > The historic vote on Geekonics - a combination of the word "geek" and > the word "phonics" - came just weeks after the Oakland school board > recognized black English, or Ebonics, as a distinct language. > > "This entirely reconfigures our parameters," Milton "Floppy" > Macintosh, chairman of Geekonics Unlimited, said after the school > board became the first in the nation to recognize Geekonics. > "No longer are we preformatted for failure," Macintosh said during a > celebration that saw many Geekonics backers come dangerously close to > smiling. "Today, we are rebooting, implementing a program to process > the data we need to interface with all units of humanity." > > Controversial and widely misunderstood, the Geekonics movement was > spawned in California's Silicon Valley, where many children have grown > up in households headed by computer technicians, programmers, engineers > and scientists who have lost ability to speak plain English and have > inadvertently passed on their high-tech vernacular to their children. > > HELPING THE TRANSITION > > While schools will not teach the language, increased teacher awareness > of Geekonics, proponents say, will help children make the transition > to standard English. Those students, in turn, could possibly help > their parents learn to speak in a manner that would lead listeners to > believe that they have actual blood coursing through their veins. > > "Bit by bit, byte by byte, with the proper system development, with > nonpreemptive multitasking, I see no reason why we can't download the > data we need to modulate our oral output," Macintosh said. The > designation of Ebonics and Geekonics as languages reflects a growing > awareness of our nation's lingual diversity, experts say. Other groups > pushing for their own languages and/or vernaculars to be declared > official viewed the Geekonics vote as a step in the right direction. > > "This is just, like, OK, you know, the most totally kewl thing, like, > ever," said Jennifer Notat-Albright, chairwoman of the Committee for > the Advancement of Valleyonics, headquartered in Southern California. > "I mean, like, you know?" she added. > > THEY'RE HAPPY IN DIXIE > > Yeee-hah," said Buford "Kudzu" Davis, president of the Dixionics > Coalition. "Y'all gotta know I'm as happy as a tick on a sleeping > bloodhound about this." Spokesmen for several subchapters of Dixionics > - including Alabonics, Tennesonics and Louisionics - also said they > approved of the decision. Bill Flack, public information officer for > the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Bureaucratonics said that his > organization would not comment on the San Jose vote until it convened > a summit meeting, studied the impact, assessed the feasibility, > finalized a report and drafted a comprehensive action plan, > which, once it clears the appropriate subcommittees and is voted on, > will be made public to those who submit the proper information-request > forms. > > Proponents of Ebonics heartily endorsed the designation of Geekonics > as an official language. > > "I ain't got no problem wif it," said Earl E. Byrd, president of the > Ebonics Institute. "You ever try talkin' wif wunna dem computer dudes? > Don't matter if it be a white computer dude or a black computer dude; > it's like you be talkin' to a robot - RAM, DOS, undelete, MegaHertZ. > Ain't nobody understands. But dey keep talkin' anyway. 'Sup wif dat?" > Those involved in the lingual diversity movement believe that only by > enacting many different English languages, in addition to all the > foreign ones practiced here, can we all end up happily speaking the > same boring one, becoming a nation that is both unified in its > diversity, and diversified in its unity. Others say that makes no > sense at all. In any language. > > ----- End Included Message -----

2 1

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:23:18 -0600 (CST) > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com > > I can give you an example. > > ``Jim Choate invented an improved bubble sort method, called BSAM.'' > > This is undoubtedly false since you likely did not invent any sorting > method. But you would not be able to get any damages (is that correct?) Under the present system? Yes, it would not be worth a lawyers time to process the appropriate paperwork unless I were a computer scientist and the statement was published in a reputable magazine by something like the ACM or IEEE. Under the system I propose you would be forced to publish a public recantation in the local press as well as paying the legal fees for the trial at least. Provided of course it was worth the cost of the bond to me. After all it is my reputation. The only person who should make decisions about how important my reputation is to me is me, most definitely not you or any other third party. I suspect you would not allow me to decide your reputation either. > When you say "should", what do you mean? That the current law will > hold you to a minimum standard of evidence? > Or you mean that it would be nice if it were so? Neither, the currrent requirements of the law are irrelevant. My premise is that such current laws are broke, why would I want to promote them? Answer, I wouldn't. As to 'nice', what is nice isn't an issue. What is necessary is the recognition that for a democratic society to exist in a world where business is done based on reputations by parties who may never make more contact than a email and EFT making statements about such reputations which are not backed by verifiable evidence should be discouraged strongly. > > A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other > > forms of lies. > > Why? And who decides what is a lie? This is almost too silly to even respond to. A lie is a statement which could be true but isn't. In the context of the current discussion this would mean that a statement made by one party about another party which was told to a third party and was not verifiable with evidence. Why should anyone tolerate a liar? Responsible and reasonable people don't tolerate liars. Who decides? The same group who decides now, the jury. > > In civil cases the plaintiff should place a bond, set at some percentage of > > the maximum permissible award, at the time the case is filed. This would at > > least cover the general costs of the court and limit nuisance cases. > > > > You can either oppose "specieocracy" and inequality of rich and > poor in libel litigation, or ask to place bonds that will make even > harder for the poor to sue, BUT NOT BOTH, if you want to remain logical. This is another clever attempt at a smoke screen. Nice try but 'Brrrrrttt', you loose the bet. I would suggest you don't play poker, your bluffs are truly amateurish. If the plaintiff pays up front or at the end is irrelevant. If the plaintiff loses they pay the cost of the court. If they win then the defendant pays the court costs, reimbursment of the bond, and the penalites awarded by the jury/court. The only reason to require anything up front is to act as a verification that the plaintiff can pay the court costs (which they get back if they win and must pay anyway if they loose) up front. The reason being that it would be possible without this for people to skip out on the court costs if they loose, which would cause another more expensive cost, a criminal trial, that the people in general would have to carry. The end result would be that the taxes we would have to pay would be higher just like your credit card costs are more expensive than they need to be because of fraud by other card holders. I would never attempt to speak for you but I pay too much tax now taking care of deadbeats and similar sorts. Further more, the bond would not have to be extravagant. If it were a simple case of libel with no punitive damages involved it would be resolved by a small claims court and might require no more than $25 - $50 as a bond. The point of the bond is to make the plaintiff think twice, not hinder them if that is what they truly feel is their due. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by rex 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: >If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug >offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a >full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away >from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of >circumstances. But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing. UNITED STATES v. VERNON WATTS UNITED STATES v. CHERYL PUTRA on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 95-1906. Decided January 6, 1997 Per Curiam. In these two cases, two panels of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that sentencing courts could not consider conduct of the defendants underlying charges of which they had been acquitted. United States v. Watts, 67 F. 3d 790 (CA9 1995) (-Watts-); United States v. Putra, 78 F. 3d 1386 (CA9 1996) (-Putra-). [...] Because the panels' holdings conflict with the clear implications of 18 U. S. C. 3661, the Sentencing Guidelines, and this Court's decisions, particularly Witte v. United States, 515 U. S. ___ (1995), we grant the petition and reverse in both cases. [...] Justice Stevens, dissenting. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 revolutionized the manner in which district courts sentence persons convicted of federal crimes. Burns v. United States, 501 U. S. 129, 132 (1991). The goals of rehabilitation and fairness served by individualized sentencing that formerly justified vesting judges with virtually unreviewable sentencing discretion have been replaced by the impersonal interest in uniformity and retribution. [...] II The issue of law raised by the sentencing of Cheryl Putra involved the identification of the offense level that determined the range within which the judge could exercise discretion. Because she was a first offender with no criminal history, that range was based entirely on the offense or offenses for which she was to be punished. She was found guilty of aiding and abetting the intended distribution of one ounce of cocaine on May 8, 1992, but not guilty of participating in a similar transaction involving five ounces of cocaine on May 9, 1992. United States v. Putra, 78 F. 3d 1386, 1387 (CA9 1996). If the guilty verdict provided the only basis for imposing punishment on Ms. Putra, the Guidelines would have required the judge to impose a sentence of no less than 15 months in prison and would have prohibited him from imposing a sentence longer than 21 months. If Putra had been found guilty of also participating in the 5 ounce transaction on May 9, 1992, the Guidelines would have required that both the minimum and the maximum sentences be increased; the range would have been between 27 and 33 months. As the District Court applied the Guidelines, precisely the same range resulted from the acquittal as would have been dictated by a conviction. Notwithstanding the absence of sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the alleged offense on May 9 led to the imposition of a sentence six months longer than the maximum permitted for the only crime that provided any basis for punishment. In my judgment neither our prior cases nor the text of the statute warrants this perverse result. And the vigor of the debate among judges in the courts of appeals on this basic issue belies the ease with which the Court addresses it, without hearing oral argument or allowing the parties to fully brief the issues. [...] Even more than Williams, this Court, like all of the Circuits that have adopted the same approach as the District Courts in these cases, relies primarily on the misguided five-to-four decision in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986). For the reasons stated in my dissent in that case, id., at 95-104, I continue to believe that it was incorrectly decided and that its holding should be reconsidered. Even accepting its holding that the Constitution does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a sentencing factor that increases the minimum sentence without altering the maximum, however, there are at least two reasons why McMillan does not dictate the outcome of these cases. In McMillan, as in these cases, the defendant's minimum sentence was enhanced on the basis of a fact proved by a preponderance of the evidence. But in McMillan, the maximum was unchanged; the sentence actually imposed was within the range that would have been available to the judge even if the enhancing factor had not been proved. In these cases, however, the sentences actually imposed were higher than the Guidelines would have allowed without evidence of the additional offenses. The McMillan opinion pointedly noted that the Pennsylvania statute had not altered the maximum penalty for the crime committed and operated solely to limit the sentencing courts' discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it without the special finding of visible possession of a firearm. Id., at 87-88. Given the Court's acknowledged inability to lay down any `bright line' test that would define the limits of its holding, id., at 91, and its apparent assumption that a sentencing factor should not be allowed to serve as a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense, id., at 88, see also ante, at 7, n. 2, the holding should not be extended to allow a fact proved by only a preponderance to increase the entire range of penalties within which the sentencing judge may lawfully exercise discretion. [...] In my opinion the statute should be construed in the light of the traditional requirement that criminal charges must be sustained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That requirement has always applied to charges involving multiple offenses as well as a single offense. Whether an allegation of criminal conduct is the sole basis for punishment or merely one of several bases for punishment, we should presume that Congress intended the new sentencing Guidelines that it authorized in 1984 to adhere to longstanding procedural requirements enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence. The notion that a charge that cannot be sustained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt may give rise to the same punishment as if it had been so proved is repugnant to that jurisprudence.

1 0

Re: Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg, I read your missive (cpunks.html). It was interesting and thoughtful, despite the lack of ASCII art. I thought that I would reply to it by private email, in order to be able to speak bluntly, without damaging some of the rather fragile egos on the list. On the list I do my best to refrain from personal insults toward others, but there sometimes comes a point where the mere facts of a matter tend to be insulting to others, despite attempts to tippy-toe around them. Your HTML post does, in fact, deal with some very important points in regard to the content of the list. So much so, that it points out one of the major reasons that I see the moderation/censorship process that has been implemented as a deceitful and shoddy treatment of CypherPunk list members. After years of reaping the rewards of his role of crypto-anarchist- privacy-freedom/of/speech champion (which he has every right to), John Gilmore decides to declare, "My machine--my list. I'm changing it." (He might as well have added, "Anyone who doesn't like it can go fuck themselves!") John Gilmore effectively said, "I 'AM' the cypherpunks." Despite the fact that he rarely posts to it and does not participate in the discussions. And exactly what was the purpose behind the changes? Any two imbeciles with a case of beer could have sat down in a single evening and hammered out a solution to the problems you have addressed. Instead, John chose to confiscate the subscribers by giving his 'new' list the cypherpunks name, instead of building a new list on its own merits. And he set it up so that anyone who wants to follow what is happening in the moderation/censorship process gets 'twice as much' crapola as before. The fact is, there is not one, single member who expressed a desire to continue receiving the Tim May crapola or the UCE/Spam crapola. But the process was set up so that those who choose not to receive the edited/moderated/censored list get this shit forwarded to them, by design of John and Sandy. As far as 'censoring' goes, 'people' are being censored, not 'content'. I, among others, am auto-botted to the flames and uncensored lists. My 'offense' appears to be questioning the New List Order. If John, in his 'moderation' announcement, had stated that he intended to automatically shit-can certain member's postings, he would have lost even what shaky respect he still maintains among people who are paying a modicum of attention to what is actually transpiring on the list. To tell the truth, my original concern with Sandy censoring the list was that he does not have a particularly good command of the English language, and he seems to have trouble grasping the concepts involved in moderation/censorship. I actually like Sandy, so I was hoping my forebodings would turn out to be incorrect, but they have not. I think he is in over his head and, as a result, his moderation is close to being a joke. This is not a 'casual' observation. I have read every single message since the start of moderation, and documented the censored/uncensored posts, as well as analyzing the headers, etc. There are more than a few obtuse things going on behind the scenes. I believe that your view of 60% on-topic but uninteresting is a figure fairly close to how more than a few list members view the situation, but no one seems to realize that they are each talking about a different 60%, which, taken together, encompasses the majority of the postings. Think of it this way--what if each member was allowed to cut-out the 60% that they personally found uninteresting? What do you think would be left? You seem to be one of the few list members who realizes what they gain by having a 'library' of posts that introduce them to information and perspectives that broaden their horizons. I would hate to lose access to your posts because another member cut them out as a part of the 60% that s/he found 'uninteresting'.

1 0

pgpfingerd
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For what it's worth, I wrote a very short fingerd that fetches _only_ a user's .pgpplan file, should it exist. Else it just exits. Someone may have already done this, so be it. This was mostly for my own use, but if anyone wants the code, feel free to use it. It's available from my home page ( http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ ). After calling getpwnam() on the username supplied, it calls setuid() with the uid of the user being fingered. It ignores any finger options and attempts to parse them out. It's possible I missed some. After setuid(), it attempts to open a file called .pgpplan in the directory (pw_dir) returned by getpwnam(). If this is not a _regular_ file, it exits, i.e. no symlinks. Then it shoves the file out over stdout (this assumes it was invoked by inetd). That's it. I've only compiled it on Linux and BSDI, but it doesn't do anything very odd, so it should compile fine on other Unix platforms. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvKgyy/fy+vkqMxNAQHqKgQAqxKiAzcOUDx9ThN5D6OHwuyUE1WlCtXr EVjg0d19fhafiTGO3HwAFbk8zxtzs/YMtSJ4a5nbALQTUxVBF/749DboXU+IS37l urB7MjBb0mB7+4IDmmR/iFEJa/U/mlTWZiLZ7JOq2Y7GtuqDmGgN3Z/T+K0loQvl 7Qn1x8aHXlI= =RxZM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Degaussing diskettes
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dopehead L[ice] Vilus K[rust]OfTheMoment wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his faggot, AIDS infected lovers. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Dopehead L[ice] Vilus K[rust]OfTheMoment

1 0

[ITAR] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Derisve L]oser[ Vampire K]unt[OfTheMinute is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. .-._ {_}^ )o {\________//~` ( ) Dr.Derisve L]oser[ Vampire K]unt[OfTheMinute /||~~~~~||\ |_\\_ \\_\_ "' ""' ""'"'

1 0

Weak cryptoanarchy
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vindictive K[rap]OTM is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. |\_/| (0_0) Dimitri Vindictive K[rap]OTM ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)---

1 0

PGP Source code implementation
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dainty Virus K[ankersore]OTM wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his homosexual, AIDS infected lovers. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Dainty Virus K[ankersore]OTM `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---`

1 0

Re: CAST
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ted, Thanks for the URL correction on Carlisle Adam's CAST paper. I see that the Entrust site offers the paper in Word and Postscript formats; for those who may prefer an HTML version see a copy downloaded from the Nortel site at: http://jya.com/cast.html

1 0

Re: CAST
by Theodore Y. Ts'o 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:42:23 -0500 From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> For a paper on CAST see: http://www.nortel.com/entprods/entrust/cast.html "Constructing Symmetric Ciphers Using the CAST Design Procedure" That URL didn't work, but the following URL did.... http://www.entrust.com/library.htm Does anyone know what the intellectual property status of CAST is? - Ted

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Z.B." <zachb(a)netcom.com> writes: > My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > passphrase? If the keys were protected with a passphrase, then it's unlikely that someone with access to the disk can use them without the passphrase. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0